Re: When you can't tell the difference between Windows and systemd

I hope LXDE/OpenBox stay clean and I believe the LXQt/Qt base will remain unaffected. I think the philosophy of Qt is to be able to run the same over any system that Qt can be ported.My LXDE/Ob has run great without asking for sysD trash. I did find some LXDE-debian traces of scripts calling for things that don't exist but didn't affect anything either leaving them or deleting them. Some of them had to do with default logout calls. Replacing them with lxsession-logout (default on LXDE but not on Openbox) seemed to run better than oblogout, as the lxpolkit works better within the lxsession pkg.

Re: When you can't tell the difference between Windows and systemd

FOSSuser wrote:

That surprises me about OpenBSD, it's Canadian based, & when I use it, it is with Fluxbox & Firefox, it must be the programs that are added bringing it in.

There is no systemd in OpenBSD (or any of the other *BSD derived projects). You might find some cruft in the way of redundant directories or configs in certain ports (some ports may even spit out redundant dot files), but none of it is functional or of any use.

Re: When you can't tell the difference between Windows and systemd

cynwulf wrote:

There is no systemd in OpenBSD (or any of the other *BSD derived projects). You might find some cruft in the way of redundant directories or configs in certain ports (some ports may even spit out redundant dot files), but none of it is functional or of any use.

Re: When you can't tell the difference between Windows and systemd

cynwulf wrote:

FOSSuser wrote:

That surprises me about OpenBSD, it's Canadian based, & when I use it, it is with Fluxbox & Firefox, it must be the programs that are added bringing it in.

There is no systemd in OpenBSD (or any of the other *BSD derived projects). You might find some cruft in the way of redundant directories or configs in certain ports (some ports may even spit out redundant dot files), but none of it is functional or of any use.

Re: When you can't tell the difference between Windows and systemd

You are forgetting BSD, it is what was used prior to Linux development, is still available freely, & is totally free of the systemd bug.

Do you mean like OpenBSD and FreeBSD? Me and a friend were digging into various OSes to see which ones don't have systemd.

I eyeballed Alpine whilst my friend eyeballed OpenBSD and Gentoo. Surprisingly enough, all had traces of systemd. Alpine doesn't have systemd initially (great if you like 1980s text command interface with no real functionality, I guess?), but the moment you install XFCE (seemingly the only desktop environment you can get working on there), udev dependencies come flying in along with systemd references. In the case of OpenBSD I was told by my friend that folders (/lib/systemd etc) were found on there, and in the case of Gentoo systemd was a running process(!).

In both Alpine and Gentoo's case they make a point of stating they're systemd-free, so it's quite surprising. OpenBSD not so much, but I regularly hear how BSD is systemd free.

I probably should download an ISO of FreeBSD and take a look. Perhaps people's ideas of 'systemd-free' is different to mine; I mean in the sense of absolutely no dependencies, files or folders referencing such a thing (even if such a thing isn't installed per se), what I'd call 'certifiably systemd-free'. If there's still a file poking it's head up, for all I know it might be creating yet another system vulnerability that just hasn't been discovered yet.

(Call me paranoid if you will, but paranoia kept me from moving onto a systemd based OS, and the DNS remote code execution and admin root privilege 'it's a feature not a bug' along with... other questionable practices means paranoia gets more screen time when it comes to OS decision making.)

From my perspective, unless something really stands out I would not bother. While I can understand Debian Devuan split, I find it bizarre that there is so many Ubuntu children which differ only in WM/DM. Same goes with a lot of derivatives of Arch, Slackware, Debian. Sometimes it is difficult to find real (technical) reasoning behind new distro. Except free choice.

Connectorivity wrote:

cynwulf wrote:

FOSSuser wrote:

That surprises me about OpenBSD, it's Canadian based, & when I use it, it is with Fluxbox & Firefox, it must be the programs that are added bringing it in.

There is no systemd in OpenBSD (or any of the other *BSD derived projects). You might find some cruft in the way of redundant directories or configs in certain ports (some ports may even spit out redundant dot files), but none of it is functional or of any use.

What would happen if I were to remove these dot files?

pretty simple:check out what will happen with your ~/ after deleting all .* files. Just loosing some config settings. Mostly though these are cleaned anyway.

Re: When you can't tell the difference between Windows and systemd

Connectorivity wrote:

What would happen if I were to remove these dot files?

Dot files usually store state information, user customisations and other data such as e.g. shell history or a web browser's cache. They're not installed from a package, but created by the user. Deleting the lot would usually be a bad idea.

Deleting seemingly redundant ones may also be a futile exercise as the programme will simply regenerate them when it starts up again.